Abstraction: A Contemporary Look

THE THOMIST A SPECULATIVE QUARTERLY REVIEW OF THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY EmToRs: Tm,: DoMINICAN FATHERS OF THE PROVINCE OF ST. JosEPH Publishers: The Thomist Press, Washington, D. C. 20017 VoL. XL JULY, 1976 No. ~l ABSTRACTION: A CONTEMPORARY LOOK THE THEORY OF abstraction is one of those epistemological theories which, historically as well as in a contemporary context, have served to polarize philosophical positions. The dividing line of this division falls along two theses, bo:th of which are considered essential to the integrity of the theory itself: the doctrine of mental faculties as distinct functions of the human intellect and soul; and the theory of metaphysical realism. Traditional as well as contemporary critique of the theory of abstraction has been to the effect that quite apart from all else, these very presuppositions of the theory are suspect, if not downright mistaken; and that therefore the theory itself need not be examined for conceptual consistency and philosophical insight-to say nothing of correctness. I do not here wish to debate the various pros and cons of this critique. To be quite candid, I am convinced that as generally understood these presuppositions of the theory are unacceptable , and therefore cannot lend support to the theory itself. At the same time, I am also convinced that the theory need not 337 388 E.-H. W, KLUGE be understood in this manner; and what is more important, that the critical conclusion suggested by the preceding train of reasoning is mistaken. I am convinced that there is a way of interpreting the theory of abstraction which not only renders it immune from criticisms which have thus been directed against it, but also shows that the theory is in fact correct. This, then, is the task which I have set myself in the present paper: to show why and how the theory of abstraction should be considered seriously from a modern point of view. But as the proverb has it, one cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. Thus, what will emerge after I have done will be an account of abstraction which, although in essence constructed along historical lines, differs considerably from those accounts proffered by historical figures. In fact, it will be extremely doubtful, not to say unlikely, that any historical figure would recognize right off the theory as clothed in such modern garb as I intend to furnish it. Still, I am convinced that once explained to them, these individuals would accept my version of the theory of abstraction as merely a modern re-working of their own. Nor do I make this last claim in the spirit of a pious hope. I am confident that what I see as the central thrust of the theory of abstraction is already to be found in the writings of that greatest medieval expositor of it: St. Thomas Aquinas. In the present paper, I propose to put this confidence to the test. That is to say, I shall present my analysis of the theory of abstraction as a reinterpretation and exposition of the account proffered by St. Thomas. As an aside, I find this approach doubly fitting: Not only is the account given by Aquinas the touchstone of any attempted reinterpretation ; if successful, my endeavour will also have the merit of showing the perennial nature of the Saint's conceptual endeavour . I However, I shall not begin in medias res. Instead, I shall soften the harshness of my unaccustomed interpretation by beginning with Aristotle, the precursor of Aquinas. ABSTRACTION: A CONTEMPORARY LOOK 339 That is to say, the roots of Aquinas's theory of abstraction are manifold. Ultimately, however, they reduce to one-a taproot , to continue the metaphor: the theory of perception advanced by Aristotle. The latter probably finds its most familiar expression in Book Three of the de Anima. There, Aristotle tells us that we must distinguish between a sense on the one hand, and a sense organ on the other. The latter, so he tells us, is merely a material, physiological entity which functions as the substratum of the sense itself, where the sense is defined as " the equipoise of contrary qualities in the organ." 1 He then does go on to say...